That also happens to be exactly the kind of math error AI is notorious for making. I bet the article was written by AI and likely not even proofread by a human.
Or it wasn't making any kind of claim and just posting what the celebrity claimed and providing estimated revenue from both service based on what she claimed. Why are you falsely blaming this on AI for no reason?
The article didn't contradict itself since it did not make the claim that she made more money from Only Fans, the celebrity did. They just posted the estimated revenue from both services which doesn't match up with what she said. The only conclusions we can come up with is either their estimation is completely off or she was exaggerating her example.
Some years ago, an artist who was not a mega-star but was on all the major music services published an article detailing how well each one paid. I'm now kicking myself for not bookmarking it. I clearly remember Spotify being among the worst, if not the worst.
The musician I saw last week mentioned that he'll get more money if you buy a CD from him now than if you stream his catalog on spotify for the rest of your life.
I'm a girl, in a healthy BMI and with nice hair, pretty and freckled face, but my feet are super crappy. Like, crusty, toes bend at weird angles, hard skin in random places. Even my own husband is like "plz no, stop" if they get too near to him.
I'm now wondering if there's a market on the other end of the scale...
There is. There’s a fetish for everything. Certainly when it involves your feet, I’d ask your husband if he’d be ok with some internet strangers paying you every month to see your feet, the worst is he says no, and on the other hand if he says yes you have a second source of easy income
I used to know a dude that would have gotten hard at your written description here. No bullshit. Dude was obsessed with feet, and what he called "real feet" were his particular favorite. Feet that had seen some life, had been used was one of the few things he would talk about. Literally obsessive about feet.
I guarantee he is not the only one. The only question is if there's enough like that to make any useful money out of a feet only business.
There's something about foot fetishists that's extra obsessive compared to any other fetishists I've run across over the years.
I wonder how onlyfans pay model works. If they take a percentage and you don't need to put any initial funds down to start then you'll basically have nothing to lose.
See, I can kinda get it for some elegant and well kept ones and I'd definitely down for some foot play in such cases. But I don't know if that would even classify as a foot fetish when I constantly hear about how bad people have it for the (pardon) "ugly" and unkempt ones, which I just find weird.
But yeah... I mean, there's like 8 billion people on this planet. There's always some niche where one fits into that would get someone off and could be capitalized if they'd be willing to do so. Just keep in mind that you're, in the end, still selling your body for sex in a way.
Add the caption "Listen up, degenerates. I'll only warn you once. I will release a new photo, closer than the previous, every hour, on the hour, until my subscriber goal is met."
I'm positive there is an audience for men's feet, but if you aren't 5 stars on wikifeet, you'll probably have to market yourself. Study the foot fetish community to find out what the dude foot fan needs more of. Etc.
Something I've noticed in British media as of late is that OnlyFans makes some serious money - enough so that a creator can essentially use local journalism as an outlet for promoting their page.
I doubt some of the figures, but if you were to dig into them you'd probably see that number after the media have basically told people "look! Lily Allen has OnlyFans!"
Alongside that, funny enough, OnlyFans is probably one of the UK's biggest tech success stories. They make a lot of money, have only a few employees, and are basically leaders in their field. That's probably another weighing towards this being a promo piece.
Allen’s daily stream count on Spotify as of Oct. 17 was about 851,623. Assuming that number is correct, the Music Streaming Royalty Calculator estimates Spotify would’ve paid a total of $4,077 a day, with $3,239 going to sound recording for the copyright owner; $336 of mechanical royalties going to the publisher, who pays the songwriter; and $503 in performance royalties going to performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, etc.).
Which of these numbers goes to her? I'm just confused, I think.
Everybody likes to hate Spotify but if they pay out 4000 dollars a day and the artist gets nothing, that doesn't sound like Spotify is the main problem.
The article is missing the content from the quoted article for the 4,000 a day. It pays out 4,000 a day to the studios and publishers, whatever actually % of that she gets is probably less than 10.
What's fun is that some people who read this article are probably into feet (good for them!) so it's like an ad and now she'll probably make even more on onlyfans. While still making ludicrously little from spotify.
Not really. It just means onlyfans pays more than Spotify... which seems obvious to me??? A direct subscription to an artist vs only a few cents per play... yeah, no brainer, the artist is going to make less money in the latter deal.
The article didn't claim she made more money on OnlyFans than on Spotify, Lily Allen did. They just then provided the estimated revenue from both services using the numbers claimed by her. It could be that they used the wrong estimation for one or both of the revenues, but what's more likely is that Lily Allen exaggerated her example.
Seeing how this thread is full of hate for Spotify by seeming large number of people who are fans of streaming music/podcast services, I'll pos this question here:
What are the better alternatives for someone seeking to get their favored audios, in terms of library selection, able to form custom playlists and how much if any support to the artist/content creator actually gets to them and what is pocketed by the app?
Go to their concerts, buy the official merchandise and get CD’s or pay the whole albums like on qobuz (they also have streaming, but they sell hi-res flac)
All of the services steal from artists, so I'd recommend ripping MP3 tracks from Youtube. There are several tools online for this purpose. Yes, the artist gets nothing, but the more important thing is the services stealing from the artists don't get anything either.
Do this and then compensate the artist in other ways. Buy music directly from them if you can, or buy their merch, or something of that ilk.
Is it weird that I used to think the reverse? Alfie was Lily's brother, and a nepo baby. I be damned if he didn't earn it though. Also, my first thought was the woman who played "Asha" was not Lily Allen.
It’s worth noting that Allen doesn’t actually claim she earns more money from OnlyFans than Spotify.
“imagine being and artist and having nearly 8 million monthly listeners on spotify but earning more money from having 1000 people subscribe to pictures of your feet. don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
I love how the whole crowd of people that used to be all "what, you don't have a Spotify account?!" Are now starting with the "wait a minute, these guys are domineering and bad!" Like the signals for crowd abuse aren't plain as day.
This exploitative behavior will be down by literally any company that sets themselves up to be "the streets" that you gotta navigate to interact with someone else or their media. That means YouTube, Facebook, and also all those physical places on Earth.
I had a 6 month trial of Spotify for $1 so I thought I'd try it to see if it would help me discover new music. It only has about 70% of the albums in my collection. I wasn't willing to lose 30% of my music so it's back to USB in the car and plexamp everywhere else.
I'm American and I knew about her. Smile was at least a modest hit.
I said above that the album that was on, Alright, Still, is a really good album.
Edit: from Wikipedia-
Alright, Still debuted at number 20 on the Billboard 200 in the United States, with first-week sales of 34,000 copies.[51] The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) awarded the album a gold certification on 6 December 2007,[52] and by November 2013, it had sold 627,000 copies in the US.
That's a bit less than half of UK sales, which is pretty good for a British artist in the U.S.
Would it? Another way to word this might be "Platform with 8,000,000 monthly streamers/listeners pays less than platform of 1,000 subscribers to view pictures."
I don't think this individual's identity enters into it at all. That sentiment comes across as a deliberate, mean-spirited attempt to denigrate this person.
Whether or not selling pictures of one's anatomy is a viable career, or a morally questionable career, or any questions along these lines are a separate discussion. This article to me points out the drastic discrepancy in two services, yet again calling attention to the issue of artists and their earnings when utilizing Spotify as a distribution platform.
Another way to word this might be "Platform with 8,000,000 monthly streamers/listeners pays less than platform of 1,000 subscribers to view pictures."
Think about it for a minute and it becomes pretty clear that shouldn't be surprising at all
You subscribe directly to someone on Onlyfans, you subscribe to Spotify as a whole and your listening habits help split the bill. If both are ~10 bucks a month of course one is going to make you more money than the other
Especially if they're a lesser known artist. Even if they're getting listened to, if the same people listen to 3x as much swift or whatever that will impact the lesser known persons earnings
This article is a dog shit way to bring attention to Spotifys issues, simple as
Leaving you with 80% of the revenue you, yourself, directly generate is unheard of in this day and age. If you have anything like a 9-5, you're probably getting around 10-20%. The rest goes to all your bosses, and most importantly of all, the company shareholders.
If you have anything like a 9-5, you're probably getting around 10-20%.
My wife works as an associate attorney (a lawyer that's not a partner, meaning they don't own the company they work for) and I think she makes maybe 1/4 of what the company bills clients for her time. Of course, some of the money would go towards things like property taxes for the office, bills, etc.
And that's not as bad as someone working in big tech who may make a decent salary (senior developer at Google or Meta is around $270k/year salary plus $300k/year stock) but the company may make hundreds of millions of dollars per year from your work.
Maybe. Without it, though, the individual would have to build and maintain a site, direct traffic there, and handle payments, as well still do all of the community management and content creation they already do. Now either they'd spend their own time doing this if they have the knowledge, or pay others, which might meet or exceed that 20% depending on their income level.